Catholicism and Physics: "If I Were A Christian" (Article)

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
greylorn said:
The kind of understanding I am personally seeking is the deep integration of physics and theology. There is no more room for that in the Church, or in any other religion I’ve examined than there is in physics. Homelessness is a better alternative than trying to live where one does not belong.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that the only thing deeply connects physics and the Church is the human mind. I don’t believe that God hides things in an obscure ‘gap’ of physics, for instance. You might as well try to find a deep connection between sports and art. Again, there are many similarities but all of the similarities are based on the human mind; how in both the human mind needs discipline and practice for example.

I would suggest not being homeless but to live in one and work in another (or play and visit if you like). Personally, I find that physics and Catholicism complement each other by fulfilling different parts of my life; just as my family fills out another portion and when I get a chance playing a musical instrument another.
 
bscastro said:
I found this article very interesting. In talking to my own sister, who is by her own definition a casual Catholic, I discussed the role of science and religion and discussed my interpretation of Pascal’s wager to her. I discussed that it is not a “proof” of God’s existence, but as a way of justifying pursuing God in that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

In any case, how it relates to this article…hopefully the author will make a similar wager to explore with his apparently brilliant mind the truth of God.

In Christ,
Bryan
Click to expand...
I had a friend who took Pascal’s wager.

He is now a God-believer.

That God is Shiva.

😛
 
greylorn said:
Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

I’m not quite as convinced as you that physics’ model is all that coherent, and must disagree strongly that it even approaches the notion of “exhaustive.” **You’ll see what I mean if you live another 20 years.
** (emphasis added)
I love your comment about the relationship between reality and mathematics. I don’t regard that as a mystery, because I regard math as God’s first language, and I regard the universe as the product of very intelligent engineering, in which raw energy was transformed into the stuff of our universe by entities capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Without an extraordinary grasp of multi-dimensional mathematics, God could not have done the job.
Click to expand...
Hey man, I’m 82… you mean I have to be 102 before wisdom comes? 😉 And actually, I did overstate my case that physics is coherent and exhaustive (although, in my 51 year career as a physicist, I’ve done one good paper that covered group theory, statistical thermo, quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry,and molecular biology, and it amazed me that all those subjects hung together in one particular application.) Nevertheless, I’ll admit that there are part and levels of physics that have to be approached differently–reductionism is not useful for collective phenomena. And even Roger Penrose says there has to be new physics in order to understand consciousness, so there are gaps.
But I will stand by my comment that a totally comprehensible god is not God. That the human mind is finite, has to be a given, I believe. God cannot be finite, but has to encompass everything. This is what both Augustine, who was wise before his time, and Georg Cantor maintained (see Adam Drozdek’s “Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor” and Rudy Rucker’s "Infinity and the Mind. Your comment about God having to be a mathematician agrees totally with Augustine–again go to Drozdek’s article (or my blog on the article)
 
@greylorn Wrong, as in your reading of the article is wrong. The article clearly states: “This mystery centers on the meaning of the quantum state, a mathematical entity that, through a well-defined “recipe,” yields physical predictions. But what does the quantum state tell us about the world beneath the level of these predictions? What’s really going on? Some 80 years after quantum mechanics’ inception, this remains an open question…]” which is precisely what you say the chap is mistaken about.

I do agree that QM, for all its wonders, is only a model. What I disagree with is that physics/Catholicism cannot lead one closer to God.
 
Tony_the_mad said:
I am afraid that the only thing deeply connects physics and the Church is the human mind. I don’t believe that God hides things in an obscure ‘gap’ of physics, for instance. You might as well try to find a deep connection between sports and art. Again, there are many similarities but all of the similarities are based on the human mind; how in both the human mind needs discipline and practice for example.

I would suggest not being homeless but to live in one and work in another (or play and visit if you like). Personally, I find that physics and Catholicism complement each other by fulfilling different parts of my life; just as my family fills out another portion and when I get a chance playing a musical instrument another.
Click to expand...
You are writing from current knowledge, which can be construed to support your position. If you choose to remain ignorant, go no further. Otherwise, you might consider trying to read Digital Universe— Analog Soul, scheduled for June publication. But please do this only if your mind is capable of understanding (not necessarily accepting) ideas about the nature of reality, the nature and purposes of God, and the origin of the human soul which you have never read before.

If you know something of physics, prepare your mind for an interpretation of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and QM that you’ve not previously encountered, plus an explanation for dark energy.

My bet is that you’ll not read a word, and will be parroting the same old illogical beliefs 40 years from now that you reiterate today. That’s fine for you, but don’t wish it upon me, please.

My “homelessness” is strictly metaphoric, meaning that neither atheists nor religionists can tolerate my ideas. These ideas have no home. I actually have a house, and it has a piano for those moments when I can no longer stand to listen to the superbly performed sonatas and etudes of competent musicians. Yet I would trade my personal home to find one for my ideas, and may end up doing exactly that.
 
Anselm33 said:
Hey man, I’m 82… you mean I have to be 102 before wisdom comes? 😉 And actually, I did overstate my case that physics is coherent and exhaustive (although, in my 51 year career as a physicist, I’ve done one good paper that covered group theory, statistical thermo, quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry,and molecular biology, and it amazed me that all those subjects hung together in one particular application.) Nevertheless, I’ll admit that there are part and levels of physics that have to be approached differently–reductionism is not useful for collective phenomena. And even Roger Penrose says there has to be new physics in order to understand consciousness, so there are gaps.
But I will stand by my comment that a totally comprehensible god is not God. That the human mind is finite, has to be a given, I believe. God cannot be finite, but has to encompass everything. This is what both Augustine, who was wise before his time, and Georg Cantor maintained (see Adam Drozdek’s “Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor” and Rudy Rucker’s "Infinity and the Mind. Your comment about God having to be a mathematician agrees totally with Augustine–again go to Drozdek’s article (or my blog on the article)
Click to expand...
Anselm,
Hey, what can I say? Wisdom comes when the mind is ready for it. Better 102 years than never at all. 😉 But if you want to speed up the process, read my darned book, if you can stand it, and feel free to discuss its ideas freely with me or anyone else. I expect that an extended conversation between us will prove mutually beneficial.

I believe that its ideas will meet Penrose’s standards, the new physics concept necessary to explain consciousness. I developed the initial concepts a half century ago, perhaps before Penrose had even considered the problem.

I will definitely peruse the articles you referenced, and am wondering if you’d be willing to privately connect me with a source for your own paper, which appears quite interesting. A mathematician friend is interested in similar subjects, and will be willing to help me with the math. (I could do applied math just fine, but theoretical math left my mind in the dust.)

I’m especially interested in your paper because it seems to represent the kind of broadband thinking I propose in my own works. IMO the interesting questions will not be answered from within a single field of inquiry, but from the merger of several. Few people think like that. If you did it once, you can do it again.

Obviously, if anything has shut down in what was supposed to be your comfortable dotage, it is not your mind. I would love to pursue more ideas with you. My book addresses the concept of a finite nature for God in terms that you may not yet have considered. Your physics understanding gives you the background to counter my arguments in a manner unavailable to most others. I am looking forward to arguments at that level.

Would you care to pursue some of them here? This thread seems well suited to the topic.

Whatever, I’m more interested in learning from you than arguing with you, although in my experience the two processes are husband and wife.

82? Really? You must have lots of good friends. 🙂
 
aquohn said:
@greylorn Wrong, as in your reading of the article is wrong. The article clearly states: “This mystery centers on the meaning of the quantum state, a mathematical entity that, through a well-defined “recipe,” yields physical predictions. But what does the quantum state tell us about the world beneath the level of these predictions? What’s really going on? Some 80 years after quantum mechanics’ inception, this remains an open question…]” which is precisely what you say the chap is mistaken about.

I do agree that QM, for all its wonders, is only a model.

***What I disagree with is that physics/Catholicism cannot lead one closer to God. ***
Click to expand...
The enhancement of your last sentence is my doing. I disagree with exactly the same thing. The key is the addition of “physics,” because Catholicism won’t do it otherwise.
 
Anselm33 said:
Hey man, I’m 82… you mean I have to be 102 before wisdom comes? 😉 And actually, I did overstate my case that physics is coherent and exhaustive (although, in my 51 year career as a physicist, I’ve done one good paper that covered group theory, statistical thermo, quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry,and molecular biology, and it amazed me that all those subjects hung together in one particular application.) Nevertheless, I’ll admit that there are part and levels of physics that have to be approached differently–reductionism is not useful for collective phenomena. And even Roger Penrose says there has to be new physics in order to understand consciousness, so there are gaps.
But I will stand by my comment that a totally comprehensible god is not God. That the human mind is finite, has to be a given, I believe. God cannot be finite, but has to encompass everything. This is what both Augustine, who was wise before his time, and Georg Cantor maintained (see Adam Drozdek’s “Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor” and Rudy Rucker’s "Infinity and the Mind. Your comment about God having to be a mathematician agrees totally with Augustine–again go to Drozdek’s article (or my blog on the article)
Click to expand...
Hi Anselm33

I’m enjoying the links and discussions and will be looking forward to learning more as I am a musician with interest in these areas. I noticed a comment made by yourself in another thread and was hoping if you had a moment, it could be expanded on. Above its mentioned,

That the human mind is finite, has to be a given, I believe God cannot be finite, but has to encompass everything.

The comment I noticed in another thread, " Rather than saying a single subatomic particle needs God, I’d say God is manifested as the infinite, both in mathematics and in the world of the mind."

I’m simply trying to get at a consistent togetherness in meaning with both above. It would seem that an understanding of what exactly is meant by mind in the entries, is missing on my behalf relative to the idea.
 
FurtherSuntime said:
Hi Anselm33

I’m enjoying the links and discussions and will be looking forward to learning more as I am a musician with interest in these areas. I noticed a comment made by yourself in another thread and was hoping if you had a moment, it could be expanded on. Above its mentioned,

That the human mind is finite, has to be a given, I believe God cannot be finite, but has to encompass everything.

The comment I noticed in another thread, " Rather than saying a single subatomic particle needs God, I’d say God is manifested as the infinite, both in mathematics and in the world of the mind."

I’m simply trying to get at a consistent togetherness in meaning with both above. It would seem that an understanding of what exactly is meant by mind in the entries, is missing on my behalf relative to the idea.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments; I’m not sure in a brief space I can add much to what I said above. The best writings I’ve seen about infinitude, mathematics and God are what Adam Drozdek said in the links I quoted in the original post, “Infinity and the Absolute: Augustine and Cantor”
From time to time I’m commenting on physics, science, faith and reason in my blog
“Top Down to Jesus”, so if you’ve got some specific questions I’ll try to answer them, but I’m visiting CAF only once or twice a week. Thanks again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top